In a significant ruling dated 20 June 2025, the Madras High Court reaffirmed the importance of effective service of notices under the GST law. The case, titled Tvl. Metro Computers vs Deputy State Tax Officer (W.P. No. 15793 of 2025), dealt with the issue of ex-parte GST assessments made solely on the basis of notices uploaded on the GST portal. The Court held that while digital service through the portal is legally valid, it is not automatically sufficient—particularly when a taxpayer fails to respond.
The Court emphasized that GST officers must exercise due diligence and attempt alternate modes of service such as registered post, email, or personal delivery, as prescribed under Section 169 of the CGST Act, before finalizing any ex-parte order. The ruling serves as a critical reminder that procedural compliance must not override principles of natural justice.
⚖️ Case Background
In Tvl. Metro Computers vs Deputy State Tax Officer (W.P. No. 15793 of 2025), the taxpayer challenged an ex‑parte GST assessment order based on notices that were uploaded only on the GST common portal, specifically under “Additional Notices and Orders.” They did not receive actual intimation and therefore failed to file a reply.
Madras HC’s Key Holding (20 Jun 2025)
- Uploading notices on GST portal is legally sufficient, but not always effective. If a taxpayer does not respond:
- The GST officer must explore other modes of service permitted under Section 169 of the GST Act (e.g. RPAD, registered/email).
- Merely uploading repeated reminders to the portal without any attempt to ensure receipt amounts to “empty formalities”, undermining natural justice and increasing unnecessary litigation burden.
Court’s Directions to Tax Authority & Assessee
- The earlier assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
- Conditions imposed:
- Taxpayer must deposit 25% of the disputed tax (within 4 weeks).
- Submit reply within 3 weeks of deposit.
- Officer must arrange personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits—not merely on procedural compliance.
Broader Precedent
- Related judgments echo similar principles:
- In Pioneer Products, the Court held that before passing any ex‑parte order, at least one reminder by RPAD or other valid mode was mandatory when portal notices go unanswered.
- In Nizaar Bags v Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (delivered 4 Jun 2025), the Court emphasized that service must be “effective”, not just technical compliance—requiring alternate service modes when the portal fails to generate a response.
✅ Summary Table
| ✔️ Issue | 🔍 Principle | 🧭 Court’s Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Notice uploaded only on portal | Legal under Section 169, but may fail in practice | Officer must consider alternate service if no response |
| Repeated portal reminders without physical delivery | Mere formality, not effective service | Mandated RPAD or registered email when portal fails |
| Ex‑parte assessment on such notices | Violates natural justice | Assessment set aside; new procedure allowed |
| Taxpayer’s remedy | Deposit and filing reply | Personal hearing and decision on merits |
🧾 Takeaways for Officers & Taxpayers
- Tax Authorities should not treat portal service as sufficient if there is no response—they must proactively resort to registered post or email under Section 169.
- Load-bearing: once a taxpayer doesn’t engage with portal notices, it is the officer’s duty to ensure notice delivery via alternate methods.
-
Taxpayers should monitor their portal regularly; but in case of failure, courts are prepared to grant fresh chances if procedural fairness is lacking.